Hi,
A comment regarding alternatives A and B. Absence of an assertion
implying prohibition is not supported by the WS-Policy framework. See
issue 3602: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602
This would be a domain-specific redefinition that introduces an
undesirable special case.
Fabian
Tom Rutt wrote:
> I thought it would be good to close my action Item from WS addressing
> WG with this
> summary of my 4 proposed solutions. (I now prefer alterntiave D)
>
> Alternatives A through C would rely on multiple policy alternatives to
> indicate that a response sender can use either Anonymous or
> Non-anonymous Replies.
>
> Alternative A:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0017.html
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as
> requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is
> anything other than wsa:Anonymous URI.
> Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies
> prohibition for that alternative.
> (one problem with Alternative A is that missing nested assertion has
> same meaning as presence of the other nested assertion, since
> NonAnonymous URI is a uri which is NOT Anonymous)
>
> Alternative B:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0016.html
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as
> requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is
> defined as any "connectable" URI..
> Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies
> prohibition for that alternative.
> (one problem with Alternative B is difficulty in defining
> "connectable" URI in a transport independent manner)
>
> Alternative C:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0016.html
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as
> requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is
> defined as anything other than wsa:Anonynous URI.. Missing nested
> assertion within an Anonymous assertion has no meaning with respect to
> use of response URIs.
>
>
> Alternative D:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0018.html
>
>
> Summary: Remove nested policy assertions for wsa:Addressing assertion.
>
> I personally could live with either alternative D or C, but prefer
> Alternative D.
> If we pick Alternative C, I see the only practical thing for a
> response sender to put in its policy is three alternatives (one for
> addressing with nonAnon repolies, another for addressing with anon
> replies, and another with addressing showing no nested policy
> assertion). However this is no better than saying that addressing is
> supported.
>
> If we select Alternatives A , B, or C, we should probable add text
> stating that the policy attached to a response sender subject pertains
> to individual instances of responses. Also clarify that if
> alternatives exist for either non anon or anon, that different
> response EPRs in the same requiest can obey any of the allowed
> alternatives.
>
--
Fabian Ritzmann
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stella Business Park Phone +358-9-525 562 96
Lars Sonckin kaari 12 Fax +358-9-525 562 52
02600 Espoo Email Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM
Finland